Global warming debate riddled with inaccuracies

There are so many fallacies in the global warming argument that I'm not sure where to start.

Most global warming fanatics hang their hat on a 2003 study that showed 1998 to be the warmest year since 1932, so we absolutely need to do something now . But let's look at this study, assuming it was done correctly (not even this is a given).

If 1998 was the hottest year since 1932, then why was 1932 even hotter? That was in the midst of the Great Depression, so it certainly wasn't because of all the industry going on at the time. And the same study had data up through 2001. Why weren't 1999, 2000 and 2001 each respectively hotter than the year before? The fanatics' own data showed that temperatures peaked in 1998, so what's the big deal now?

ALSO, RECENT data shows significant warming on the surface of Mars. Is this man-made, too? Can the Mars Rover really pollute an entire planet?

Also, the primary cause of global warming is supposed to be carbon dioxide, and that from burning various fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. But do you want to know the real source of most of the carbon dioxide on this planet? There are over 6 billion (and counting) "factories" that spew out carbon dioxide thousands of times a day, and there is no denying that these are human-caused. That's because they are, in fact, humans who exhale CO2 every time they breathe. If you want to eliminate a primary source of CO2, just get rid of all the humans.

The fact is that there is absolutely no consensus on whether global warming exists -- and, if it does, whether or not it is indeed caused by humans. One series of solar flares can cause greater impact to our climate in minutes than all of man's activities over a millenia. Why is it that global warming theorists can guarantee what our weather will be like in 50 years, but can't tell you with 100-percent certainty if it will rain tomorrow?

Now if you can't win an argument with facts, then try to denigrate the opposition by saying their numbers are inconsequential. Everybody just knew that the Earth was flat, even though a select few claimed otherwise. They were branded as heretics. Does this sound familiar to how global warming skeptics are treated?

IF YOU WANT to see what the other side has to say, check out the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and try to keep an open mind.

(The writer, an Evans resident, holds degrees in aerospace engineering and engineering management.)